Obradovich: It's time to look at the caucus integrity issues created by money

Jul. 28, 2013
|

The high-profile ethics complaint against a Republican state senator may lead to legislative action to prohibit payment to state legislators for work on a presidential campaign. But if political officials are serious about reinforcing caucus integrity, they need to look beyond the Statehouse.

The spotlight is on legislators’ caucus activity, for obvious reasons. Allegations that state Sen. Kent Sorenson was compensated for work he did for Rep. Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign leading up to the 2012 Iowa caucuses are not yet settled. Sorenson has denied he did anything wrong. State officials admitted in a Des Moines Register report a week ago that Senate ethics rules, as written, are ambiguous, although they feel the intent is clear.

State Sen. Jeff Danielson, D-Cedar Falls, chairman of the Senate State Government Committee, said he intends to propose clarifying the prohibition on payment and elevating it to state law. “Perception is reality and if it is perceived by the rest of the country that significant elected officials are for sale, that’s not the perception we want to have,” Danielson said Friday. “... I believe if we don’t address this, it will add fuel to the fire for those who do not want Iowa to be first in the nation.”

Iowans involved with presidential campaigns on both sides of the aisle say it would be a good idea, if only to send a message.

“I think it would do a lot to ensure the integrity of the caucuses, absolutely,” said Brad Anderson, who managed the Iowa caucus campaign for President Obama in 2012 and who is now running for Iowa secretary of state.

David Oman, the 2012 Iowa chairman for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, agrees. But Oman says legislators aren’t the only ones Iowans should be worried about. He says he’s observed an increase over the past decade in state and county GOP party officials working concurrently for candidates and getting paid for it.

Historically, that wasn’t the culture in the Iowa GOP. “People took their party role quite seriously ... and I would argue quite correctly refrained from jumping on board with a candidate and making that known,” Oman said. If someone has spent months as a paid representative of a campaign and then shows up to run their local caucus, it presents the appearance of conflict, he said.

Oman served on a Republican Party of Iowa panel last year that recommended changes in light of problems with the 2012 caucus vote counting and reporting. During that process, some Republican activists and county chairs called for rules requiring party leaders to refrain from working for or even endorsing presidential candidates during the caucuses. The committee’s report did not deal with the issue, however.

One might imagine that the well-documented conflict of old-school Republican leaders with the new brand of libertarian-leaning party officials is at the root of such complaints. Several state central committee members affiliated with Ron Paul’s presidential campaign were elected before the 2012 caucuses. Their ranks have grown since 2012 and now include the top party leaders. However, the party leaders will face re-election in 2014, before the next caucuses. This shouldn’t be about the current party administration, but about setting the right tone for the future.

Scott Brennan, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, said the need for party leaders to stay neutral in the caucuses is always emphasized. “We are all about making sure that it’s fair,” he said. However, the Iowa Democratic Party rules are also silent on the issue.

Former Iowa Democratic Party executive director Norm Sterzenbach said outside work for campaigns was extensively discussed after the 2012 caucuses, but concerns about prohibiting legitimate activities prevented consensus. The party did create a policy that requires disclosure for any paid work that could present a conflict of interest with party duties, Sterzenbach said.

The Iowa caucuses are already back under the national microscope because of the Sorenson ethics case and because early 2016 traffic is picking up this summer. Iowa political leaders both inside and outside of the Statehouse should commit now to taking affirmative action that ensures that Iowa provides a fair, impartial and welcoming caucus process.